Weak people are constantly victims. They don't have self-responsibility or accountability. However, obviously there is a wide range of Victimhood. So a 12 year old girl being raped is not comparable to a 22 year old young woman being raped. Nuance is lost on Modern people though, who are irrational, emotional, and sensationalistic.

Modern Feminists claim that "Women are strong, hear us roar!" on one hand, but on the other, "We are poor, blameless victims of the Evil White Male Patriarchy!" This is a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. So Modern women either need to admit that they're weak, pathetic, ignoble people, OR, they're strong, noble, and self-responsible.

Many women, who are raped, it's the more the woman's fault than anybody else. If a drunk slut goes to bars, parties, or college frat parties, then she is mostly to blame, not males.

Again, the problem with Modernity, and Modern Feminism, is that they imply under everything that women are 0% to blame for anything. Perfectly innocent. But this is wrong. And it undermines all women. It makes women look pathetic, weak, stupid, and irresponsible. It makes women look vile. It makes women look ugly and disgusting, to have NO SELF ACCOUNTABILITY. And it reveals women as ignoble, completely.

Women with class, dignity, nobility, will have a stronger sense-of-self, self-responsibility, and self-dignity. When there are Noble women present, men tend to shy-away and not try to rape them, because Noble women are the actual "strong women". Noble women don't drink themselves stupid. Noble women dress conservatively, and only revealing WHEN APPROPRIATE, with a male she trusts and adores. Noble women REFUSE to be "victims". So this is why, in the Modern time, in the Western civilization, there are few noble women, maybe none?

And ignoble women are worthless, not worth fighting for, not worth competing for, and definitely not worth going to war for. A nation built on ignobility, pathetic women, has no future.

And this is the current state for Modern USA and other western nations. Ignoble women everywhere.

I disagree, just as a well dressed person walking down the wrong part of town late at night, doesn't give me the right to rob them, it doesn't give me the right to rape them, either.That being said, women still have to be cautious, because there's scumbags out there, there will always be scumbags out there, there's only so much we can do to protect them, but even if they aren't cautious, or through no fault of their own, happen to find themselves in a precarious situation, they shouldn't be sexually assaulted.

Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:06 pm, edited 3 times in total.

I agree tho that women can't, or oughtn't have it both ways.If women want all the rights men have, they should have all the responsibilities men have, which means they don't get bailed out by men/society when they fuck up, or at least not anymore than men get bailed out by women/society.

Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:07 pm, edited 3 times in total.

If it's okay for a man to have sex with a woman while she's too intoxicated to consent, it follows that it's okay for a gay man to have sex with a man while he's too intoxicated to consent.It's not okay.That being said, while all rape is wrong, not equally so.Having sex with a woman who tells you no, is worse than having sex with a woman who's too drunk to say yes or no.And if a man and a woman are drinking together, the woman drinks to the point of not being able to consent, the man drinks to the point of not being able to realize she's not able to consent, and has sex with her, it's not as bad as having sex with her while he's sober or merely buzzed and able to fully realize she's not able to consent.

Last edited by Gloominary on Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:26 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Gloominary wrote:If it's okay for a man to have sex with a woman while she's too intoxicated to consent, it follows that it's okay for a gay man to have sex with a man while he's too intoxicated to consent.

No it doesn't "follow".

The lust for women is not comparable to the perversion of homosexuality. It's natural for men to lust after, and try to get, sex with women. It is unnatural for men to lust after other men. Furthermore, the responsibility of sex (Pregnancy) is not comparable.

So as long as western women continue to degenerate, become vile and disgusting, western civilization will continue to crumble at the core.

What needs to happen, must happen over time, is the raising of Superior/Noble women by superior fathers. To teach superior females to refuse victim-hood, to take responsibility for choices in life, and to make positive decisions (like NOT getting blackout-drunk and dressing like a slut in public). However, everybody sees the Modern precedent, which is pro-slut, pro-degeneracy, pro-disgust, pro-faggot, pro-victimhood, pro-irresponsibility.

barbarianhorde wrote:Yeah man this is the only thing left to resolve. Bitches need to take responsibility after 10000 years of being in the passengers seat. But they can't. It's not in their brain. So we are fucced.

We can't go back to no rights for women because. .. well face it we don't like that cause were awesome. But we can't go forward either cause of the biological in abilities of women to think straight.

So.... were screweehd kekky. Just fucc as much as thou canst and don't pay for any drinks!

To the degree women get bailed out by men/society when they fuck up, they should be given less rights than men have.

It's natural for men to lust after, and try to get, sex with women. It is unnatural for men to lust after other men.

This's an old argument.Here's three old objections:1) Disaster and disease is natural, so is not bathing, public nudity and urination, boorishness, eating and drinking to excess, lying, cheating, stealing and so on, does it follow disaster, disease and 'bad' behavior should not only be tolerated, but encouraged? 2) Some animals have homosexual tendencies, in addition to incestual and interspecies sexual tendencies.3) Homosexuality is natural, in that a person can instinctively lust after the same sex, and not because they've been socialized to do so, or because they've chosen to do something contrary to their instincts, just as a person can instinctively lust after the opposite sex, and not because they've been socialized to do so, or have chosen to do something contrary to their instincts.

Furthermore, the responsibility of sex (Pregnancy) is not comparable.

This is also an old argument, and not a very good one at that.The responsibility or raison d'etre for a hammer is to hammer nails, does it follow I shouldn't use it to beat a burglar over the head?But really life has no raison d'etre, it just is, or we make it up, but not necessarily arbitrarily, without reference and deference to our instincts, or having a more cultivated, mature and refined comprehension of our instincts.

Does it follow a sterile man shouldn't have sex with an infertile woman?Are confectioneries altogether bad, because they're empty calories?Sex has many uses besides procreation, it gives us pleasure, it strengthens the bonds of love.

What needs to happen, must happen over time, is the raising of Superior/Noble women by superior fathers. To teach superior females to refuse victim-hood, to take responsibility for choices in life, and to make positive decisions (like NOT getting blackout-drunk and dressing like a slut in public). However, everybody sees the Modern precedent, which is pro-slut, pro-degeneracy, pro-disgust, pro-faggot, pro-victimhood, pro-irresponsibility.

Both men and women need to take responsibility.Men, and women shouldn't rape each other.And women need to learn how to appropriately express what they (don't) want, and interpret what men want, just as men need to learn what women want, and how to appropriately express what they (don't) want.

There are consequences for being a slut and a homosexual, but there are consequences for being chaste and a heterosexual.Rather than altogether condemning, or condoning such behaviors, I think it's important to weigh the costs/benefits of everything we do in life, to some extent.These behaviors are complex, with multiple costs/benefits, which can vary from person, place and time to person, place and time, they're not wholly bad or good.

Exactly. Weak and strong are qualities that are not comparative to other people's strength or the context. It's just a flat digital divide. If you are strong, no one can beat you up. If you are weak, you can't beat anyone. Just two boxes with every human in them. A woman cannot be a great soccer player and confident in her dealings with people and ever be raped. Because a strong woman is stronger than all men. You can't be strong at some things and weaker at others.

No strong woman has ever been raped.No strong man has ever been murdered, or raped for that matter.Unwrong is stronger than ALL THE MEN who have been raped, in prison for example, that's why he's never been raped.

Binary logic like this is what makes life easy and clear and life is easy and clear. I don't have to think about any details or contexts. You've been raped you are a slut whore weakling. You ever lost a fight, you are a piece of shit faggot man, and that includes all the boxers who lost fights. Unwrong, a strong man, he would kick their weak asses.

Anyone who has been robbed deserves it. They did something wrong.

It CAN NEVER BE THE CASE: that a robber, murderer, rapist is responsible for their crimes because if the victim had not fucked up or dressed wrong or been in the wrong place or drunk alcohol, then there would have been no crime.

Me, myself, I see someone with a nice watch, and they are drunk, I fucking smash them over the head with a chair. They did that. They gave me their watch when they got drunk.

Weak people are constantly victims. They don't have self-responsibility or accountability. However, obviously there is a wide range of Victimhood. So a 12 year old girl being raped is not comparable to a 22 year old young woman being raped. Nuance is lost on Modern people though, who are irrational, emotional, and sensationalistic.

Yup. Unwrong will lead the way into nuanced thinking.

Modern Feminists claim that "Women are strong, hear us roar!" on one hand, but on the other, "We are poor, blameless victims of the Evil White Male Patriarchy!" This is a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. So Modern women either need to admit that they're weak, pathetic, ignoble people, OR, they're strong, noble, and self-responsible.

There, see the nuance. Unwrong is showing us some feminists who want their cake and eat it too, and he is showing nuance.

Many women, who are raped, it's the more the woman's fault than anybody else. If a drunk slut goes to bars, parties, or college frat parties, then she is mostly to blame, not males.

Yeah, because those men they are completely determined machines. They have no responsibility because they are like robots. I mean, of course, you want to force yourself on someone if you can. Every man wants that.

Again, the problem with Modernity, and Modern Feminism, is that they imply under everything that women are 0% to blame for anything. Perfectly innocent. But this is wrong. And it undermines all women. It makes women look pathetic, weak, stupid, and irresponsible. It makes women look vile. It makes women look ugly and disgusting, to have NO SELF ACCOUNTABILITY. And it reveals women as ignoble, completely.

Yeah, and even if not all feminists are this binary, or even most, it is good to have a nuanced binary reaction. Fuck women for being proud of anything. The moment you say you can do certain things, have confidence about certain things, they you cannot fucking complain about being raped. Oh, so you were a successful lawyer and you got raped. Well, then you were not strong. You were weak, period. Cause there are two boxes ladies, so you want to be proud of doing something you were told for centuries you were too stupid, emotional and weak to do....?Well, if you get raped or robbed or murdered we are gonna fucking blame you

Men have no responsibility for their actions in the face of you being proud of some.

Women with class, dignity, nobility, will have a stronger sense-of-self, self-responsibility, and self-dignity. When there are Noble women present, men tend to shy-away and not try to rape them, because Noble women are the actual "strong women". Noble women don't drink themselves stupid. Noble women dress conservatively, and only revealing WHEN APPROPRIATE, with a male she trusts and adores. Noble women REFUSE to be "victims". So this is why, in the Modern time, in the Western civilization, there are few noble women, maybe none?

He's right, in the olden days, no noble women got raped. Invading armies never raped noble women. They said, oh she's proud of herself, I won't rape her. Men never do that. Because they have no control. A strong woman in the middle ages or in some pagan tribe, when another tribe came in in a war, they never raped those strong women. Why? Because they simply could not. It's an aura thing. But they raped the weak women. Why? Because they can't help but rape weak women, cause the women are in control.

And ignoble women are worthless, not worth fighting for, not worth competing for, and definitely not worth going to war for.

But they are worth raping. Not that the men can choose. They have no responsibility for raping the weak women, but they would if they had a choice because weak woman are worth raping.

And this is the current state for Modern USA and other western nations. Ignoble women everywhere.

It is YOUR fault, women.

And while some might think that Unwrong is here presenting the problems as the women's, that he is being a victim to women, this is shallow understanding. Women are weak, and at the same time they are responsible for men's behavior. Men are just waiting for them, so that we can have a good modern society. Men are strong, but not responsible. Male robbers are strong, but not responsible. I mean, you have nice stuff in your home, in a society with high unemployment, why a robber, or is it burglar, has no responsibility. You were weak. You went out to the movies. The burglar could not help it.

You got fired, your fault, your boss could not do anything else.You got broken up with, even though you still loved her, your fault, you weak. She could break up with you, so she did. She had to.

If something bad happens to you, it is your fault, you fucking pathetic faggots and whores.

Gloominary wrote:It's also 'natural' for men to want to take each others things, so if we're drinking together, and you pass out, does it follow that I have the right to take your things?If not why not?

Theft is not comparable to sex either. If you want to make an argument about theft then you should equate Theft to rape. That's a closer analogy. Rape is 'theft' of a woman's sexual value. Once a woman's virginity is gone (stolen or taken by force, against her will) then she is worth-less than she was beforehand. That's what "Rape" is about, in the first place, a woman's sexual (de)-value.

Modern Rape is a means for Modern women/feminists to say to the world, "such-and-such guy stole my sexual value, and I deserve compensation". However, this belies the fact that some women have very high sexual value, and others, very low. Older women, for example, have a very low sexual value compared to younger women. Does society really care when ugly or unattractive women are raped? Not as much.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Exactly. Weak and strong are qualities that are not comparative to other people's strength or the context. It's just a flat digital divide. If you are strong, no one can beat you up. If you are weak, you can't beat anyone.

You seem to be incapable of nuance, and must resort to Hyperbole, which is inferior reasoning.

Obviously, power is a function over time. Are there any powerful/strong 3-year-olds? No. Are there any powerful/strong 30-year-olds? Yes. So power is based on maturity. And in this thread, it's based on Education, genetics, and many other factors. Here's the problem. Modern Civilization, Feminism, teaches young women, girls, daughters, a series of lies. It teaches women that "you are blameless" and "you are never at fault" (for rape). You are "always" a victim. "Evil-White-Men are oppressing you." But these lies are a handicap. They're not true.

Instead, what society should be teaching western women is, "You must become self-responsible, and this is a feat of Morality, and Spirituality". You must become spiritually strong. Obviously not "all bad things" can be prevented in life. Even if you live in a safe neighborhood, there is some small chance of being beaten and mugged by brutes. There is a chance that a piano will fall out of a plane and kill you. There is a chance a bolt of lightning will strike you. No matter how safe you try to be, no matter how Powerful any individual becomes, not all disaster can be avoided.

But here's the difference. A spiritually strong woman will react differently to rape, than a spiritually weak woman. A strong woman will want revenge, obviously. And she would take the Onus, Responsibility, upon herself, to avenge the sexual value that was stolen from her. So a spiritually strong woman would have a much higher chance of avenging herself, of getting her Justice, where spiritually weak women (like the #metoo movement, Modern Feminists, SJWs, etc) will not. The more pathetic women will ...come "out" 30 years after the crime, and make baseless accusations. Spiritually weak women will clamor for "victims". Spiritually weak women will spread the gospel of "Being a Victim".

But they will never spread the gospel of "Become Self-Responsible", or "do not get blackout-drunk", or "dress conservatively".

Do you see any of these wretched whores starting a "dress conservatively" movement or "don't drink alcohol" movement???

Where are the Modern Feminists who spread gospel for "Report sexual crimes to the police within 24 hours of the event"???

I don't see that movement. Where is it?????

Why hasn't there been a "Report rape crimes within 24 hours" movement???? Ever???

Could it be, that many women "don't know" if they've been raped, until they have time to dwell on it, and then think later, "hmm I didn't 100% consent to having sex with that douchebag guy, while I was black-out drunk in college"???

As I said, there is nuance involved. There is true-rape, like some 14-year-old girl kidnapped, virginity raped from her, and left maimed on the side of a road. True-Rape is actually very rare in Modern society. Instead Modern Feminists conflate Fake-Rape, (girl CHOOSES to get blackout drunk at a college frat party), with True-Rape, and then say that "all rape is caused by men", when actually, women made some bad choices and decisions, and want to cover them up with false-accusations.

Or here's a good one. A woman claims that "my boyfriend raped me". How, the fuck, can YOUR boyfriend, that YOU CHOSE, rape you? But, women are often times tricked by devious males, and pay the price for it (loss of sexual value). But who is to blame for the woman's lack of intelligence and screening process? Who is going to correctly identify that stupid women are partially to blame too? Is a smart woman going to choose an abusive boyfriend? Most certainly not. So she should receive some credit.

I don't think any reasonable or rational discussion, about this topic, can be had until people admit that women are partially to blame for THEIR CHOICES in life, especially including the males they CHOOSE to associate with, and date.

If a woman CHOOSES to go out on a date with a guy who, later, roofies her drink and rapes her in the bathroom of some night club ...then she made a poor choice in life. I'm not saying she's ineligible for Revenge. Clearly, she is. But that Revenge is upon her to take. If she is embarrassed, and doesn't report it to police, then TOUGH LUCK. Women should be educated better.

But that's not what Modern society is about.

Modern society is about crippling young people, with lies and falsity, and teaching them "to be victims" instead. If Modern society were serious about "empowering" young people then a serious talk would be had about how young women should screen boyfriends, and protect their virginity and sexual value. But there are no discussions about this, because women "can spend it however they want to, and with whomever they want to" even though this results in the Modern degenerate culture and "#metoo" movement.

If Modern society actually cared about rape, sexual assault, young women, and their screening processes, then Modern society would (hypothetically) strongly educate young women 1) not to drink alcohol, 2) not to go to night-clubs, and 3) not to drink roofied-drinks. But that is not the case. In reality, young women often willingly engage in such behaviors, and actually want to go be gang-banged in an orgy. Some women are sluttish and perverse. So these 'loose' women really don't have the same kind of credibility of other women who would want to maintain their sexual value.

Some women are very liberal with their sex, others, much more conservative. As such, it is more of a crime that a man would rape a woman who is prude, than one who is loose.

Because how can a loose woman be trusted?

What is the credibility of a hooker who says she was raped??? Seriously?

While I can have a great deal of sympathy for the emotions underneath this, a story has hardened into a metaphysics. Of course we all harden our stories into metaphysics, but a noble person will find the tools to undo this. I mean, sure, I have struck appliances for no doing what they are supposed to and blamed tools for my mistakes and made everyone narratives based on some of my experiences and not wanted to look around at other stories or see the anomolies and wonder about my involvement in the making of my story. But a time comes when you have to question the narratives in your head, and get into the tough challenges of learning.

I know this post is harsh and ad hom. But I have people who I love who the op is spraying shit on. And really, the argument in it, if applied broadly, sprays shit on all of us.

Once a woman's virginity is gone (stolen or taken by force, against her will) then she is worth-less than she was beforehand. That's what "Rape" is about, in the first place, a woman's sexual (de)-value.

Rape isn't just about one thing.Rape damages women in multiple ways.

There is fear of contracting an STI, fear of unwanted pregnancies, fear of being held down against their will, and fear of being beaten.They may develop (more) androphobia/misandry, agoraphobia/misanthropy and/or GAD.They may be full of self-loathing for being afraid, or for not being able to escape, evade or fend off their attacker.They may try to conceal their fear, because they don't want others to know how vulnerable someone made them feel.

Some of them may blame themselves: 'did I lead him on in some way, am I a skank'?Which's of course what you're advocating, some rape victims to do.Or: 'was I wrong to refuse him, was I being mean, am I a bitch'?And yea, like you said, some women may feel (more) like 'damaged goods' after being raped, even if they're feminists, or just proud and don't care to admit it.

As for men who're raped by men, or women, they're less likely to think of themselves as damaged goods, and more likely to question their masculinity.

Modern Rape is a means for Modern women/feminists to say to the world, "such-and-such guy stole my sexual value,

Again, there's a hell of a lot more going on here than just that, but I agree that that can play a role, for whatever reasons: cultural, sociological and/or evolutionary.

However, this belies the fact that some women have very high sexual value, and others, very low. Older women, for example, have a very low sexual value compared to younger women. Does society really care when ugly or unattractive women are raped? Not as much.

Just because a woman isn't (very) attractive, doesn't mean rape can't damage her, it can damage her immensely, for all the aforementioned reasons, and probably more.You're just thinking of how it damages her, for you, not of how it damages her, for herself and people who love her, which's extremely unempathetic and antisocial of you.

Sexual value is of course subjective.For some men, rape victims may have less value, but I think for most modern men, it wouldn't make much difference.I don't think it would make much difference for me, I'd probably mostly feel sorry for her, unless her PTSD was so bad it made her highly dysfunctional, or worse, she had a huge grudge against all men, than I'll have to take a rain check.It's not my job to rescue women, been there done that, didn't work out so well, and it's certainly not my job to be punished for 'patriarchy' or other men's supposed 'crimes'.Never done that and never will, I'll leave that to the SJWs and white knights of the world.Good luck fellas.

It is definitely true that there are feminists who have binary and or aburd thinking and this leads them to ridiculous positions. When Macenroe said that Serena Williams would place somewhere in the top 150 in men's tennis - I could have the number wrong - he was simply correct. He may have been off on the exact placement, but however great she is, she is still not as fast, explosive and skilled as top men. She is definitely a strong woman and an incredible talent, but it is not sexist to point out that she cannot beat the top men. so he gets a heap of shit from people who would be very saddened if men's and women's tennis merged. There are examples in many other fields and topics with similar idiocy.

But a counter reaction with its own idiocy does not make matters better.

Women were told for centuries that they were little better than children mentally and incapable of all sorts of things it has turned out they are completely capable of. Serena Williams appearing in 1960 would have scared the shit out nearly every male tennis player. Women in many, many professional fields have turned out to be yes, strong and capable in ways that it was considered absurd previously. It isn't binary. You can be strong and still be overpowered by a man and raped. You can be noble and raped. In fact I think the idea is attractive to some men, to put a woman in her place. One can be increbilty strong in various areas of activity and yet be vulnerable to many different crimes, including rape.

We do no one, man or woman, service by arguing that if you are the victim of a crime you are not strong.

Yes, those feminists who think that only men create problems are in a bind if they then want to say women are strong. They need to explain how women who are strong stood by and watched men fuck things up without intervening. I am sure such feminists exist and also defacto exist since it is implicit in some other feminist arguments even if they don't come right out and say it.

But this is just lumping everyone into one absurd box. Everyone on the team one disagrees with. Throwing a lack of nuance at a lack of nuance does not help anyone.

You don't get to take all the money out of an open cash register just because the store owner was careless and left it open to go in back to check on something that might be out of stock. You are still responsible. He is not a pure victim. He did not take care of his cash as he should, he put himself in a bad situation, especially give your character...but amazingly enough you are still a theif. He did not cause you to steal. Even if he had a few drinks. Or he turned his back on you so you could bash his head in. Even if he should have been more wary or not opened a store in THAT neighborhood. Even if he should have taken more MMA lessons. Even if he was born smaller than you and is an ecto to your mesomorph. In fact this idea, held by many of the worst criminals, that if they succeeded in fucking you over, you deserved being subjected to the crime, in not a good one to reinforce. Cause they don't give a fuck if your wife is a traditional, noble woman, they'll still break into your house and rape her. I know you think that you will be home, near enough to your gun and it will all work out like in a Bruce Willis movie because it works like that in your mind, but sorry, noble men and women get fucked over too. If they have money, the odds do go down, but it is correlated with the money not with the nobility.

And why do you need to steal? Why is that attractive to you? Why can't you get your own money in a noble way?

What kind of person criticizes women as being sluts and not being noble, but thinks that the men who rape her because she drank or had certain clothes are not due some serious criticism? It seems they have no self-control, want to have sex with someone who does not want to, want to have sex with someone they do not like or respect, and seemingly have little outlet for their desires so this is considered an opportunity. They are 1) clearly sluts themseveles, lacking moral character around sex and 2) do not mind overriding other people's desires with force. Alright your tribe needs food, I get why you might raid a neigboring tribe, to take care of your own. But if the world is full of sluts, then you don't have to force yourself on one who does not want to have sex with you. And if you can't find a decent woman, one you consider moral and noble, you might want to look at yourself.

Some men want women to be these pure mirrors. They don't want women to be like them, they call those women sluts. The little madonna/whore dichotomy in their minds is just that, a thing in their minds. I don't want some fucking Sharia run society where men are women's jailers and the women have to keep themselves completely pure so the men don't have to deal with their own self-hatred.

Growing up it was a great disappointment to me actually that women who attain power aren't at all concerned with "saving the planet". That would be a useful fixation. But it turns out women with power are even more narcissistic than men, so much so that they invented a political movement designating only the value of their own gender.

Woman shortcircuited. How can their gender have value if it doesn't value the gender that is supposed to value it?

My question is why female sex slavery was romanticized in art? Who the hell came up with that idea? To make it romanticized as such. Did people buy it and actually believe they were looking at something beautiful and romantic going on there? We still have sex slavery going on worldwide (in the form of human trafficking - fortunately, no one (that I know) is making romantic paintings out of girls being pushed into a van at gunpoint, or laying in bed nude, smiling and blissed out because they're pumped full of heroin) Because today, that would be an equivalent of romanticizing this subject.

Pandora wrote:My question is why female sex slavery was romanticized in art? Who the hell came up with that idea? To make it romanticized as such. Did people buy it and actually believe they were looking at something beautiful and romantic going on there? We still have sex slavery going on worldwide (in the form of human trafficking - fortunately, no one (that I know) is making romantic paintings out of girls being pushed into a van at gunpoint, or laying in bed nude, smiling and blissed out because they're pumped full of heroin) Because today, that would be an equivalent of romanticizing this subject.

How frequent is this though, really?

How many daughters of the middle class, suburban neighbors, are being kidnapped and gunpoint and flown overseas?

1 in 1,000,000?

Is this equivalent to the topic-matter, that a teenage girl, or young woman in college, gets drunk at a frat party, loses her virginity, and claims she was raped (by her boyfriend at the time) X-years later???

First of all, don't conflate the cases, because they're not the same. Second of all, at what point should women be "victims", and which point shouldn't they be?

Should a 30-year-old woman be a "victim"? Shouldn't she have learned, by now, hopefully???

I'm not saying there aren't VICTIMS in the world. Clearly, there are (Mollie Tibbetts). I'm not saying that all victimhood can be avoided or prepared for. It can't. There are rare circumstances and occurrence, chances of harm and evil, that cannot be anticipated. However, my point has more to do with enduring evil, and recovering from it. I do believe, that a 'prouder', stronger woman, would want revenge for the injustice done to her, and the assault to her pride. Why aren't females reporting rape, if it is so, immediately after it would happen? It's shame, fear, etc? To what point is it an excuse? At least the world would know, for certain, that coming forward immediately that a woman is speaking truthfully.

10-20-30 years later, there must be doubt. And this #metoo movement, isn't it doing more harm than good, to the next generation of daughters?

I believe that people are using these matters politically and not addressing real problems, seriously. It cheapens the occurrence of real victims when they do happen. Basically, the Modern world is capitalizing on the victimization of true-victims, which is a double-evil. It's an evil for the rare times (Mollie Tibbetts) such a thing happens, and it's double-evil for others to compare their injustice to one that was far greater.

I think the Modern world let's Evil be, and allows it to happen, than to really address it and respond immediately to it.

I believe that Modern humans would rather some Evil occur to some, than to break the peace and bliss of the many.

This is why Moderns don't really care about each-other, except on a superficial level. Because the morality is, "some evil is good, as long as the many is safe". And Moderns are then, immediately hypocrites, when the evil happens to them. Because then they find a deep discontentment in the response, "why doesn't anybody care?!?!"

Well, that is because the Western world has slowly cultivated an apathetic population, made not to care... it has been indoctrinated over time.

Should a 30-year-old woman be a "victim"? Shouldn't she have learned, by now, hopefully???

Learned what ~ to be as a god ~ omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent?

Is a 30-year old woman not a human being? Is she perfect in all things or is she allowed to be flawed? Is she not allowed to feel like a victim under certain circumstances until that time when she gains more consciousness and realization not to BE one?

Human beings are NOT all knowing. We cannot be aware at every moment in time of everything which is going on around us or of just the right thing to do. We may be self-determined but there are others who are also self-determined. Do you see the clash there?

Do we learn? Yes, we do as we go along and in time. Even warriors fighting are not omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, are they? For any man to think that "a woman should (absurd) have learned, I might ask that man what his fear is?

Women cannot be "Strong" and VICTIMS at the same time...

Have you ever been attacked or raped that you can make that statement or is it just an open statement for discussion?Can you know the mind and the emotions of a woman who is being attacked? Can you know what inner strength may be within her which she is utilizing at that moment although physically speaking, she may not have the strength of her attacker?Aside from that, women can be both strong and victims at the same time. It is too bad that there are not enough strong real men out there to show a woman that. Too many little boys!

Many women, who are raped, it's the more the woman's fault than anybody else. If a drunk slut goes to bars, parties, or college frat parties, then she is mostly to blame, not males.

Are you being facetious here?

I would ask you just how much in terms of percentage would you say that these women are at fault as opposed to the men who ARE RAPISTS and supposedly just could not help themselves? YOU speak about women being ignoble? LOOK AGAIN.